Dr. Free-Ride is trying to goad us into proclaiming our nerdliness. Various science bloggers are having a friendly competition to see who is the nerdliest of them all, and she wants to know why CV isn’t represented.
Regrettably, I’m going to pass on this one. (Not that I couldn’t put up a respectable showing, since past indiscretions are apparently fair game; I loved my old RPN Hewlett-Packard calculator, and I’ll put the glasses I wore in high school up against anyone’s.) It’s just that I’m not entirely on board with the program of reclaiming “nerdliness” as a badge of honor, as gays have managed to reclaim queer and so forth.
Words like “nerd” or “geek” have two very different sets of connotations, and it’s hard to evoke one without the other. One has to do with technical mastery and know-how, or even a more broadly-based appreciation for things academic and intellectual. The other has to do with social awkwardness, the inability to comfortably converse with strangers at cocktail parties, and a tendency to dress in the least attractive way possible.
Roughly speaking, the first of these connotations is “good,” and the second is “bad.” But they’re both problematic. Nobody would be happier than me if we could somehow increase society’s appreciation for people with technical skills, and eliminate the defensive dismissal that so many people fall back on when confronted with math or science or computers. (There are only so many times you can tell people what you do for a living, only to hear “That was my worst subject in high school.”) So in that very particular sense, I’m all in favor of celebrating nerdliness. But for me it’s very much a part of what should be a general appreciation for intellectual endeavor, whether technically oriented or not. And as a matter of personal experience, I’ve found science and engineering types to be at least as anti-intellectual as the average person on the street, when it comes to non-technical kinds of scholarship. Naturally, there are plenty of pro-intellectual types, among people with and without technical backgrounds. That geek cred, however, lends a special kind of bite to know-nothingness when it rears its ugly head; someone with a Ph.D. in physics can not only dismiss philosophy or art or literature as airy nonsense, they can compare it directly and unfavorably to their own sphere of competence. And they do.
But it’s the social-backwardness aspect of being a nerd that is the biggest problem. You can protest all you want that you’re really talking about technical competence, not lack of social fluency, but the latter comes immediately to mind whenever anyone hears talk about nerds and geeks. Wikipedia spells it out:
Nerd, as a stereotypical or archetypal designation, refers to somebody who pursues academic and intellectual interests at the expense of social skills such as: interpersonal communication, fashion, and physical fitness.
What is worse, there’s a certain point of view (I won’t name names … some of my best friends are nerds) that actually celebrates social awkwardness for its own sake. (Trust me about this, I’ve been employed by both MIT and Caltech.) And that’s just wrong. I’m not talking about principled eccentricity, letting your freak flag fly — nothing wrong with that, in fact it’s admirable in its own way. Nor am I saying that everyone should be scouring the latest issues of GQ and Vogue for fashion tips; superficiality is just as bad as nerdliness. And laughing at our high-school (and college) selves is always fun and healthy. All I’m saying is that there is much to be valued in an ability to relate to other kinds of people in a disparate set of circumstances, take care of your appearance, and function effectively in a wider social context. These are skills we should try to cultivate, not disparage.
The point is that these two aspects of nerdliness operate against each other. If we want the rest of the world to appreciate technical skills, then we should work to eradicate the notion that they are necessarily associated with a lack of social skills. And that’s the connotation of “nerd,” like it or not. Celebrating knowledge and competence and intellectual curiosity is good, but celebrating nerdliness sends the wrong message, I would argue. There’s no reason why someone who programs in assembly and is deft with a contour integral can’t also be a well-rounded and engaging conversationalist who is at all the gallery openings and whom everyone wants at their parties — that’s the message we want to send.
What a killjoy, huh? In my defense, if you’d been sleeping on a concrete floor for the last several days, waiting for your furniture to arrive, you’d be grumpy too.
I see this divide between the tech and fluffy stuff arising due to the very different kinds of thinking required when dealing with each kind of info. Analysis of tech info requires one to proceed in a systematic way according to very rigid rules. The nebulous realm of emotions, impressions etc. calls for negotiating many shades of grey and often fluid rules. Very few people seem to have a mindset that is flexible enough to deal equally well with both kinds of information.
Being a well-rounded conversationalist is overrated.
We nerds communicate via telepathy.
There are people who are far less social then even nerds: namely loners. I am one of those. Nerds actually have quite a bit of social skill. They often have parties to which I am not invited. They also have fun. It is just that they are for the most part not the ‘cool’ croud. Nerds are far more social than most people think. I used to be in a program in which the whole group was a bunch of nerds. They had friends. They had girlfriends. Many of them ended up getting married. Its just that for the most part they were a pretty unattractive bunch. I think the only real difference between nerds and ‘cool’ people is they have different cultures. Nerds value intellect, tech, science etc. ‘Cool’s value those things deemed cool: money, material things, social standing, attractiveness, fashion sense, clubbing, power etc. To talk about the ‘cool’ things in front of nerds is deemed shallow and somewhat scary (since nerds are anxious about their social inferiority). To talk about science and math among ‘cools’ is deemed a sign of inferiority. Each group has their own norms, morals, values, and social ettiquette that are used to distinguish them from the other group. Both groups actively try to eliminate outsiders. Actually the whole nerd/cool thing is part of a much broader pattern of superior group/inferior group relations. A similar dynamic exists between United States/Canada, United States/Rest of World, Liberal/Conservative (conservatives are the nerds although that is changing), rich/working class etc.
There are however outsiders who don’t really fit in to any of these groups. I am one of those. I always found it hard to fit in because all these groups have fairly rigid social codes and arbitrary ways of distinguishing themselves. It is extremely easy to say something to offend either group. I am also fairly anti social and introverted. I also don’t have real social skills like putting time and energy into maintaining relationships, calling/emailing, being open and approachable, organizing events, having good conversations (instead of monologues), smiling, understanding social etiquette etc. To me these are what a person requires to be social. Nerds for the most part have these skills.
gotta say, Sean. Don’t know when this happened (somewhere between me being on the Academic Quiz Bowl in 7th grade and me creating the Walk-While-You-Read Brigade at Emory) but nerdiness and its cohorts (primarily ‘dork’) are sexy words now.
Its endearing. People like nerds, mostly. Not because they are goofy but, in my experience, because they are passionate about something. Someone who will willing get into a debate about String Theory shows some actual life-force, as opposed to the ever-non-chalance of many “popular” kids , who are only popular , again in my experience, because they are vague enough to pass in any group. I stuck out. I made a choice. I cared about something. I know you did too!
I’ve been accused of being a science nerd AS WELL as a theatre nerd, literary dork, and others. Nerds aren’t just science-based.
Its become a funny event: its tough being a nerd girl in middle school, but in college it makes you cool and alluring. Something like that.
Cool post, Sean!
I hear this a lot from fellow physicists, but to call philosophy less of an intellectual challenge means you have not delved deep enough into it. It is not all sophistry (although a lot of it is), and to do it right requires acute logical thinking.
Part of the philosophy of science is to investigate interpretations of quantum mechanics, their implications, and their context in modern thinking. Considering that physics does not currently offer a fully satisfactory interpretation of QM, the above quote is rather misplaced.
Pingback: Nerdium Perpetuus - Asymptotia
Is CV going to forget the 9/11 anniversary too? Where were you?
PK,
Philosophy does require acute logical thinking but that’s not the challenge. Physics asks of logic but also calculations and that’s what I see as its challenge. Logic can be beautiful and intricate but getting the right numbers (or functions) is just as much, if not more. About the questions in the foundations of physics, I consider them to be fascinating too and its a matter of opinion whether one calls it philosophy or physics. What do you consider to be most unsatsfactory about the inerpretation of QM?
As thm(#18) correctly pointed out, our dismissal of philosophy and literature as airy nonsense originates from the great Feynman. We worship him and we talk and act like him when we socialize with people from other areas. He in some sense liberated us from fear of being nerds, i.e. being unaware of what’s going on in other parts of lives. What he or the likes unknowingly instilled into us functions as a kind of hormone driving younglings into a way of success by focusing on a goal monomaniacally, which makes them nerds, dorks, or whatever in broader social context. But who can blame this phenomenon? Society as a whole needs it to spearhead into next stages. But, if you are unsuccessful in your pursuits or too extreme in being nerds, you will be punished by being cut off from the society if you are too late in compromising.
Sean, working at Caltech, probably you would have a hard time in unFeynmaning things, right? 😉
Btw, is Feynman a nerd? Usually, a supernerd changes the culture in which he lives, so eventually he isn’t called a nerd any more.
Pingback: Vacuum Energy
Pingback: stigma and social graces « orgtheory.net
I see this divide between the tech and fluffy stuff arising due to the very different kinds of thinking required when dealing with each kind of info. Analysis of tech info requires one to proceed in a systematic way according to very rigid rules. The nebulous realm of emotions, impressions etc. calls for negotiating many shades of grey and often fluid rules. Very few people seem to have a mindset that is flexible enough to deal equally well with both kinds of information.
I think you misrepresent both forms of thinking.
First, calling philosophy, literature, history, etc. “the nebuoulous realm of emotions, impressions, etc.” is feeding directly into the misconception about other academic fields that scientists have — namely, that it is fluffy. All of these fields have a rigor that goes beyond how you “feel”. I don’t really understand most of them, becuase I don’t have training in most of them, so I can’t really tell you what that rigor is there… but it is. It’s not all impressions!
Second, we should not forget that inspiriation and aesthetics and intuition play in science. Yes, ultimatley, if you are going to write a paper or make a case, you have to proceed in a systematic way and show that what you are doing follows from the data and what comes before. But many discoveries in science come from intuition or aesthetics. Consider that people think some theories are more “beautiful” than others. It doesn’t make them right — that’s determined by the data and ultimately the systematic process. But it does guide where people put their efforts, and has also proven to be a useful guide. The process of science is not just turning the crank, as it were.
KC #22: “Are there any recommendations on how to obtain these social skills? Or is it too late once one is pushing 40…”
I would say it is _never_ too late for pushing oneself to learn something new and useful.
My own approach, as someone who as a foreigner still struggles to integrate myself into my new cultures, is to accept invitations as often as possible. Pushing myself, even when I can think of a million reasons why “I don’t have time”. I rarely regret those times “to broaden and build “, as they say.
Also, I pay close attention to what I like. so that when I see a smidgeon of that appealing aspect of whatever in my environment, then I follow the trail and see where it leads.
For those living in California, they have it easy. California, being what it is, has a support or social group for everything, even for how to be social…. For example, for the CalTech nerds, the administration tries to help too.
Re comments 18 & 34, I’ve never picked up the intellectual bigotry you’re talking about in the writing of Feynman that I’ve read… any examples?
I’m not claiming it is not the case, but he’d always struck me as someone who was interested in a wide range of things outside of pure physics – music, art, strippers…
If you W.V.O. Quine you’ll see that philosophy can be highly mathematical. And John Baez just had a post on the desirablility of a philosophical basis for quantum mechanics using category theory.
There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, many worlds, GRW, Ithaka, modal, and so on), and they all have their problems, either conceptual or technical. It pretty much boils down to what is commonly known as the measurement problem: at some point we have to make the cut what we consider quantum and what we consider classical. The problem is that the theory does not tell us where this transition occurs.
This is precisely where the “calculations” are the easy part: there is no ambiguity in how to obtain values for physical observables in experiments. However, to assign “elements of reality” to the objects in the theory is a philosophical nightmare.
I guess you can call all this physics, but I think that would not be fair to all those philosophers working in the field.
One exists in a superposition of the available states to his space function. Depending on the perturbations into the potential well, one could tend more toward one state then another other. And only when observed, one collapses to one; a state only measurable by the observer and dependent on the characterists associated with his frame of reference.
For instance:
A pop talk show can measure Sean as a very eloquent and entertaining persona.
A cute chick in a crowded bar can measure Sean as an extremely boring and annoying physicist after having corrected for the initial experimental erroneous measure of fascination.
At the low probability event of a regular person walking past Sean’s office decorated with papers composed of ten+ letter long words, Sean would be classified with high probability as a nerd, especially upon a conversation consisting primarily of ten+ letter long words.
Nerdiness and geekiness are art forms of expression. And yes, after so many decades, this art form is still unappreciated by society and needs fashion icons to stand tall and bold (bald too) and make a statement.
It is funny that the hairstyle introduced and promoted so heavily by Einstein never reached the masses. Ever saw the crazy hair crazy take place?!
You are in the world’s biggest playground for nerds. It is your lifetime opportunity to gather and analyze data to clear the truths and myths about that piece of the social descrepency.
PK,
Thank you for your reply.
I do know though that Mathematical Logic is, well, mathematical. Also, at a calculational level Non-relativistic QM is straightforward (well not in all its applications), but we were talking about calculations in physics in general. I see no point in ‘setting people straight’ about their opinions on why they consider their field to be the best: I do consider physics to be most challenging otherwise I wouldn’t be doing it; that doesn’t mean I think everthing else is worthless or trivial. “to assign elements of reality”, from what I can guess from the phrase, doesn’t bother me because there is no requirement that everything we use in a theory we’ve to be able to attach to reality.
Now that you have qualified your earlier statement, I think we are pretty much in agreement. However, you wrote initially that
This is not a statement of your personal preference, but a valuation. And with that valuation I disagree.
cheers,
PK
PK,
It was never a valuation. I made it clear that it was my opinion;see the whole of #14. If I considered all else to be worthless and trivial I wouldn’t have been reading about them.
Anyways, does your agreement extend to my response to “assign elements of reality to the objects in the theory is a philosophical nightmare”? That is, I see no problem here as there is no requirement that everything we use in a theory has to have a basis in reality.
Best,
Chinmaya
Well, it would be a natural requirement for any theory that purports to describe the physical world to have some objects that corresponds to elements of realiity. Otherwise, what does it mean for it to be a physical theory? Quantum theory does not conform to this: it is a theory that tells you how to calculate measurement outcomes, but those measurement outcomes cannot consistently be associated with properties of the underlying microscopic system.
This is a problem, but it is also what makes quantum theory such a fascinating subject.
Pingback: Coltrane Variations | Cosmic Variance
This is a good post, and in fact is closely related to myself. My wife, for instance, had a hard time teaching me how to combine the colors in the outfit.
Sure some objects have to correspond to reality, otherwise there would be nothing to calculate. But there is no reason why some objects have to as long as you’ve postulates that takes one from beyond observation to everything observable. My view on what makes a physical theory physical is (I think) rather traditional: it has to tell what will be the outcome of measurements; we can’t know what reality is beyond our measurements so that’s all we can claim to know. However, you wrote QM “is a theory that tells you how to calculate measurement outcomes, but those measurement outcomes cannot consistently be associated with properties of the underlying microscopic system.” When does this happen?
Re: humanities and science.
I had a history professor in college who said to me one time (as well as I can remember) “The difference between what I do (history) and what you do (physics) is that for the most part everyone in your field can agree on what the important questions are, you may disagree about the answers, but there isn’t much debate about the questions. In history, however, we can’t even agree on what the important questions are.”
Whenever the dimension of your Hilbert is larger than 3. It is called the Kochen-Specker theorem, which is related to Gleason’s theorem.